Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday June 28, 2013 @05:26PM
from the US-republicans-introduce-defense-of-test-tubes-act dept.

Dupple writes "The U.K. looks set to become the first country to allow the creation of babies using DNA from three people, after the government backed the in vitro fertilization technique. It will produce draft regulations later this year and the procedure could be offered within two years. Experts say three-person IVF could eliminate debilitating and potentially fatal mitochondrial diseases that are passed on from mother to child. Opponents say it is unethical and could set the UK on a 'slippery slope.' They also argue that affected couples could adopt or use egg donors instead. Mitochondria are the tiny, biological 'power stations' that give the body energy. They are passed from a mother, through the egg, to her child. Defective mitochondria affect one in every 6,500 babies. This can leave them starved of energy, resulting in muscle weakness, blindness, heart failure and death in the most extreme cases."

If it's so controversial, why not just get the mitochondrial dna from the father?

Because it's not easy. This method (see article) uses an egg from one women, an egg nucleus from another women and sperm from a man. If you can get the father to produce an egg then you're easy non-controversial fix just might work.

The nuclear DNA from the egg with the dodgy mDNA is transferred into a donor egg with healthy mDNA. I presume there are reasons you can't replace the mDNA in an egg from another source. Maybe it doesn't survive outside a cell.

The reason is that the nucleus of a cell is relatively huge. Mitochondria are 'almost' independent living cells wholly contained within our cells, and each has it's own DNA. But they're small compared to the nucleus.

Roughly speaking, it'd be like the difference between removing the pit of a cherry vs trying to remove every seed out of a watermelon the size of a cherry.

Certainly, I'm not inclined to blame people hit by previously-unknown or very low probability issues. That would be as cruel as it is illogical. It's the ones who knowingly act in the face of alarmingly high odds of ghastly outcomes who creep me out.

One thing that worries me is that this choice seems to be on the rise, especially with Downs Syndrome (possibly due to the trend of more births late in life, where that lateness reduces the chances of another successful pregnancy). I see it everywhere now in the progressive community in which I live. I would go so far as to speculate that in centuries past, child sacrifice may have been nature's way of dealing with such defects. Humans that would not have survived in the natural world are kept alive in our

I was using the original poster's language. Out of curiosity, why did you not respond to his post? You have taken the argument and twisted into torture and murder. Society has established rights to protect the individual against such things and come up with punishments for violations of those rights. The two are not at all the same.

You are correct that I would object to murdering my child (or any child). Where you logic fails is the assumption you make that every disability is equivalent to torturing your c

why you or anyone else care what choice people make when dealing with the very personal issue of which children they choose to have.

Probably because they never ask the children. Yes, it's personal, but the voices of those people who matter most are never taken into consideration.

When you figure out a way to do that, you'll win a Nobel Prize. However, you point out two things, these children are 1) people and 2) they matter, so why would denying them an existence be in their best interest?

While I am not accusing you of this, very often people who put forth this argument are either doing so because of the burden that they would see on themselves as a parent, or the burden on society (assuming they give up the child I would guess), but not on the child being a person who matters.

these children are 1) people and 2) they matter, so why would denying them an existence be in their best interest?

Pray tell, why is denying an existence to a healthy child that could have been born instead of a partially or fully disabled child a better option?

I wonder if Stephen Hawking had been able to have been given the choice, would he have chosen to live or not?

You seem to be insinuating a line of reasoning that borders on fallacy. We don't know the full extent to which ALS is caused by the individual contributing factors. We don't even know if the genetic factors that seem to be partly responsible for it in many cases in any way contributed to his mental prowess. The same Stephen Hawking might have never developed ALS

Pray tell, why is denying an existence to a healthy child that could have been born instead of a partially or fully disabled child a better option?

It's not an either or situation. If you have a disabled child, you are not denying a healthy child. Prior to conception there are zero children. At conception there is one child. That child is either healthy or disabled, but like Schroedinger’s cat, we don't know until we look. (That is true even if the mother or father have a predisposition for a genetic abnormality, at least for most abnormalities).

You seem to be insinuating a line of reasoning that borders on fallacy. We don't know the full extent to which ALS is caused by the individual contributing factors. We don't even know if the genetic factors that seem to be partly responsible for it in many cases in any way contributed to his mental prowess. The same Stephen Hawking might have never developed ALS if his early life had been different. Given a slightly different prenatal and childhood development, genetically the same Stephen Hawking could have developed ALS without getting the brilliance in exchange. And many other people grew into brilliant minds without suffering from ALS.

There's no reason to assume that a yet-unborn child that to your knowledge will get born disabled or preconditioned for disability with certainty will have an offsetting factor (such as scientific brilliance) with any higher probability than that a healthy child would be gifted.

There is a genetic marker for ALS on chromosome 21 (I think) and a specific test for it. Although it does not run in families, it can be tested for in utero. As such, it would qualify in this discussion would it not? Even if a child born today is predestined to have ALS, just because they will not have the scientific brilliance of Hawking, are you stating that they should not be allowed to live? That sounds like an argument to kill them off unless they have some benefit for society.

They matter. But show me one parent that would willingly choose a disabled child upon conception instead of a healthy one if given an option. Go on, just try.

Again, that is an impossible argument, of course every parent would want their children to be healthy. However, if the mother and father have the dominate genetic traits that will lead to disabilities, it really doesn't matter how many tries they get, their children will have those traits. If only one does, then it is still better than a 50/50 chance the child will, depending on the marker. Even if neither do, there is still a 10% likelihood that there will be a disability.

But, what your question really should be is of asking parents that have had a disabled child and what their views are about it. Would they have preferred their child had never been born? And while there are those that would agree with that sentiment, there are those that would not. Which comes back to the original question ofWhy you or anyone else care what choice people make when dealing with the very personal issue of which children they choose to have.

As you seem to be arguing so strenuously, it is a very personal issue that unless you are directly involved with it you cannot begin to make that choice for somebody else.

It's not an either or situation. If you have a disabled child, you are not denying a healthy child.

Oh, but it is, and you are.

Most people will only have a set number of children in their lifetime. For the majority in the western world, that's somewhere between 1 and 3. If you have one disabled child, and you were only planning on having 2 kids, you're unlikely to now change your mind and have 3.

Additionally, depending on the exact medical condition, a deformed child may impede your ability to have further children. You may have been planning on having 2 kids, but due to the added attention and cost as

It's not an either or situation. If you have a disabled child, you are not denying a healthy child.

Oh, but it is, and you are.

Most people will only have a set number of children in their lifetime. For the majority in the western world, that's somewhere between 1 and 3. If you have one disabled child, and you were only planning on having 2 kids, you're unlikely to now change your mind and have 3.

Additionally, depending on the exact medical condition, a deformed child may impede your ability to have further children. You may have been planning on having 2 kids, but due to the added attention and cost associated with a handicapped child, you find yourself unable to afford any further children. So instead of 2 healthy children, you end up with one who is disabled.

Either way it doesn't seem like a good trade, to me.

As you seem to be arguing so strenuously, it is a very personal issue that unless you are directly involved with it you cannot begin to make that choice for somebody else.

The decision to become a heroin addict is a deeply personal one also, yet we seem to have no difficulty legislating against it. Even if you could successfully argue that "personal issues" should not be legislated, that still doesn't mean we can't do ANYTHING about it. At the very least we can make sure that people are educated on the issue, and are given the information and advice needed to make the right decision.

Well, if you are willing to take on the establishment and tell 1/2 the population (women) that it isn't their body and it is the government that is control of their reproductive systems and whether or not they are allowed to have children then go for it. Effectively, that is what you are saying. Just like China has determined that women should only have 1 child, you are saying that the government should dictate that women should only have children that meet certain requirements. I doubt you will find much

Well, if you are willing to take on the establishment and tell 1/2 the population (women) that it isn't their body and it is the government that is control of their reproductive systems and whether or not they are allowed to have children then go for it. Effectively, that is what you are saying.

O_o

I think you forgot to call me Hitler....

Just like China has determined that women should only have 1 child, you are saying that the government should dictate that women should only have children that meet certain requirements.

Explain to me how having a child with issues is better for the world, for the parents, or for me than having or adopting a child without?

I predict no response.

Your prediction would be wrong then.

If you re-read what I actually said, I made no statement as to whether these children should be born or not. I simply responded to the original poster who said:

What's controversial to me is choosing to have a baby with defects.

To which I responded:

What's controversial to me is why you or anyone else care what choice people make when dealing with the very personal issue of which children they choose to have.

If you or anyone else cannot appreciate that parents faced with these types of decisions have to make personal and tough choices, then that is the real issue. If the parents choose to keep the child, that is the choice they made on behalf of their child. If they choose not to, that is likewis

No, saying that there is complexity and more than one opinion is not judgemental. Calling something controversial is a judgement statement. When used as an adjective in the manner it was used, it is a judgemental statement. When saying that politics is a controversial subject it is not. In the former one is making a statement about somebody's choice to give birth. The latter is describing the subject matter.

Put differently, you should be able to put other judgemental adjectives in the sentance and it shoul

No, I am not. Context is everything. If you look at the examples in the dictionary and that I used, when referring to a subject, like abortion or politics, then controversial is how you are intending it. When used as the original person is using it as in questioning the action somebody might take, it is a judgement statement.

Words derive their meaning based on the context they are used in. When your teenage daughter slams down the phone and you ask how she is doing and she says "Fine," with a sigh, The defi

There is no implication of judgement in this definition. If you add something to the definition, or put words like wonderful in my mouth, that is your perception (problem),

Clearly we dispute as a result of controversy. Your perceived context is just wrong.

You are correct there is no judgement in that definition. However as soon as you add "I find it controversial that..." you have made a judgement statement. That is what the original poster said. The word controversial in and of it self is not a judgemental word. How it was used in the statement he made was. If you cannot realize that then there is no point discussing further.

Yes, and this only helps with the tiny fraction of genetic diseases that are due to defective mitochondria. But maybe some day, we'll be able to deal with other diseases in a similar fashion. Pick out the chromosome that contains the defective gene, replace it with a normal chromosome from the other parent who does not have the genetic disease. Or pull a good chromosome from an unrelated person (safer, because a matched set of chromosomes can bring recessive defects out of the woodwork).

Going to these extremes to avoid adopting one of the tens of thousands of existing children who need families is a symptom of mental illness.

I'm not sure. Adoption is a complicated and lengthy process, you're going to be scrutinized ruthlessly if you're going for it. In case of a fertility treatment, or even a complicated procedure such as this, you're just one of many biological parents of this world.

I don't know about UK law specifically, but in the US, every aspect of your life is an open book during an adoption. If you enjoy anything that doesn't jibe with good upstanding Christian morals (WTF ever that means..), you will have a difficult time adopting and probably have your personal life aired in ways you'd rather not have. Assuming you succeed in adopting, for some extended period of time thereafter, your life will be subject to inspection by the courts in ways that would never be considered acce

Anecdotal evidence. Just because one child with a severe medical condition turned out right doesn't mean that diagnosing it in utero isn't a strong suggestion that "try again" would most likely bring into the world an equally brilliant person, only with fewer medical problems and with better quality of life.

If it's so controversial, why not just get the mitochondrial dna from the father?

Whatever you do there will always be people that will say it is controversial, because of the proverbial slippery slope that will appear at some point in the undefined future. In this case, it is supposed top put us on the path to designer babies. Well it doesn't. This is not targeted manipulation of the genetic content. It is nuclear transfer, similar to what is already a wide spread and well accepted in vitro fertilization procedure. Sure you can isolate mitochnodria from the father and place them in the

The source/lineage of the mtDNA isn't the controversy. The controversy is many-fold.

First up, a donor embryo is sacrificed in the procedure. You can imagine what groups don't like that.

Second, the procedure is remarkably similar to cloning. All sorts of people aren't so sure about that.

Finally, it's highly experimental. If something goes odd, the child may (or may not) have to live with it for a long time. Teasing a nucleus out of one cell and sticking it in another is a bit disruptive to say the least.

It's shameful to waste resources on this when the same money could've been used to help increase the adoption rate and to sponsor adoptions. There are children already alive who need parents, no need to make more.

I just don't understand these poor sad people who are so self-obsessed that they think they can only love a child that carries their own DNA.

Basically *healthy* *babies* basically always get adopted and there is actually a very long waiting list for them.

Drug addicted babies aren't nearly so popular. The thing is a baby suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome is basically fucked. The chances are (and the chances are high) that they will end up as an alcoholic later in life, and no amount of perental help will prevent it. Likewise they are likely to have serious behavioural problems.

Could this be used by lesbian couples in the future to have babies that are biological children of both parents? Obviously, such children would always be daughters, but I'm curious whether this sort of technique would help them.

Offhand it seems like it would be easier to produce a child from one parent (a clone) than from two women or two men, since in that case there is no essential difference between what each partner brings to the table.

If I understand correctly, this process uses two women and a man. One woman donates the egg with half a genome, the donor male provides the other half and the second woman provides the mitochondrial DNA.

That depends how you define "biological children" - mDNA is a separate string of genetic code that does one specific thing. AFAIK it has no effect on physical or mental attributes (except those that might be affected by the problems caused by faulty mDNA). So no, it won't help lesbian couples - there still has to be a daddy, so far.

except those that might be affected by the problems caused by faulty mDNA

If 'faulty' mtDNA can cause problems then mtDNA has an effect. It produce's ATP which gives our cells energy. Conceptually, if a gene can be 'faulty' it only means it can mutate and if it can mutate in can evolve. Consider, if you had the most efficient mtDNA for producing ATP. Now, if a person is born that produces ATP slightly more efficiently will your genes now be 'faulty'? Of course not. In other words, differences in mtDNA might account for people who naturally have lots of energy versus those t

Well, what I was trying to get at was that I don't see an mtDNA donor being any more a biological parent than, say, a bone marrow donor. The kid isn't going to have Mummy's eyes, Daddy's smile, and mtMummy's nose. What's more, if the kid's a boy, the mtDNA donor's contribution to the family gene pool ends with him.

So aside from making your body work at all, it's totally superfluous... The truth is, we have little clue if different mitochondrial cells have effects physical or mental attributes. But if I had to bet, I'd bet that they do because they're all over the cell doing shit.

Could this be used by lesbian couples in the future to have babies that are biological children of both parents? Obviously, such children would always be daughters, but I'm curious whether this sort of technique would help them.

"Parethenogenesis" [wikipedia.org], in mammals, is still very much in the lab. If memory serves, they've gotten some rabbits and a few mice, and some human demo cells(either not allowed to, or unable to develop past very early stages). I don't think anybody suspects it of being fundamentally intractable; but you can't exactly head down to the local fertility clinic and get it done.

Already possible? That's just two people. This is three, and would allow a lesbian couple to have a biological child with a Y chromosome lent by a third party, so they could have a son.

The technology to pick and choose single chromosomes out of one nucleus to replace a chromosome in another nucleus simply does not exist and may not for quite some time since DNA does not wrap itself up neatly into little X's until cellular division. No, the techniques involved are far cruder than that.

Similarly, the technology to combine two egg nuclei into a single, viable diploid cell also does not yet exist.

This at all, but there are many, many desperate children that feel so hopeless and lonely right now in some orphanage, that really do need someones love. I hope more people give thought to that, rather than the ever over-population of our Mother Earth.

there are many, many desperate children that feel so hopeless and lonely right now in some orphanage

Adoption in many countries is very difficult, and plenty of potential parents do not qualify. My wife and I are financially secure, and are very successfully raising two of our own kids. But we had room in our home and our hearts for at least one more, and looked into adoption. We were turned down. The reasons given were that we were too old (I am in my 50s and my wife is in her 40s), and we already have kids of our own, and childless couples would be given priority.

If there really are orphanages full of desperate children, then governments are doing an incredibly poor job of matching them up with willing and capable parents.

there are many, many desperate children that feel so hopeless and lonely right now in some orphanage

Adoption in many countries is very difficult, and plenty of potential parents do not qualify. My wife and I are financially secure, and are very successfully raising two of our own kids. But we had room in our home and our hearts for at least one more, and looked into adoption. We were turned down. The reasons given were that we were too old (I am in my 50s and my wife is in her 40s), and we already have kids of our own, and childless couples would be given priority.

If there really are orphanages full of desperate children, then governments are doing an incredibly poor job of matching them up with willing and capable parents.

Just think of using a donor egg as "adopting" that egg, and I don't think that's as difficult as adopting a baby in many countries (where IVF was available in the first place). The primary thing the 3-person IVF really enables over the commonly available 2-person IVF is that mother can have the option to be biologically related to the child if the mitochondrial dna in her eggs were somehow defective. Another way to look at it, you still have to "adopt" an egg w/ healthy mitochondria from someone (and if y

Does anybody have a plausible guess about what, exactly, the 'slippery slope' is supposed to be leading ominously and inevitably toward?

Not all 'slippery slope' arguments are nonsense, by any means; but I'd be a lot more convinced by this one if I had some idea about the alleged topography of the area around the slope. Are there monkey-men at the bottom? clone Hitler armies? The kwisatz haderach?

Keep in mind that I actually support stuff like this, ultimately wishing

I think the problem is that people are scared that the 'wealthy' will get even more ahead, and their own children left in the dust. Or they're scared of a scenario out of Star Trek - the Eugenics wars.

Personally, I want genetic modification to eliminate various obvious genetic disorders - breast cancer genes, diabetes, etc... However, we should not be changing genes until it's demonstrated that the gene we're fixing is actually a seri

The slippery slope is that perfecting this technique is a stepping stone to designer babies.

Apparently, the current technology allows replacement of the whole nucleus, allowing the nucleus of a fertilized egg w/ defective mitochondria to be placed into another fertilized egg with healthy mitochondria. The implication is that this fertilized egg is placed back in the mother (but it could be anyone). Many folks are pretty sure that we are pretty close to the ability to selectively replace a few chromosomes in

OK, so you've had your genome sequenced (or whatever) and determined there might be a problem. Isn't that nature's way of saying 'sit this one out'?

Rather than encourage society to devote so many resources to finding new ways to let you make a baby, how about adopting? There are soooo many deserving children out there who are aching for a home. They already exist - they already have the need.

Don't fiddle with nature - do the simpler thing and bring an existing child into y

Great, now all the idiots who treat the LaHaye/Jenkins literary trainwreck Left Behind like it was scripture are going to pitch a fit, because there the antichrist is the result of genetic engineering to combine sperm cells of two gay lovers which is then used to artificially inseminate a woman.